Technology-Mediated Process: MIT Stata Center case

Transcription

AC ADIA: Architectural Practice
Technology-Mediated Process:
MIT Stata Center case study
Shiro Matsushima Toyohashi University of Technology, Japan
Abstract
Gehry Partners’ (GP) sculptural approach to tectonic form, with
its dramatic curves, complex geometry, and idiosyncratic application
of materials, seems to have redefined the limits of architecture. The
development of a strong formal vocabulary has been achieved by
advanced use of information technologies, including CATIA, which
allows translation among various tectonic representations, both in
physical and digital forms. In addition, the nature of the office has
much to do with other changes in the project delivery system, such as
the relationships with associate architect, manufacturers, and subcontractors. This paper discusses how new technology changes the design and fabrication process, which has evolved from GP’s milestone
project, Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, and how organizational efforts
to involve the industry in the design process facilitate the project.
Unlike at Bilbao, in the newly-completed Stata Center GP produced
all the construction documents. This shift coincided with a gradual
change in which GP was becoming involved in the technical aspects of
their projects much earlier in the design process. Therefore they had
to invest in new working relationships with the construction team,
202
FABRIC ATION: EXAMINING THE DIGITAL PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE
Technology-Mediated Process: MIT stata center case study
Shiro Matsushima
including fabricators, manufacturers, and contractors.
The approach of Gehry and his team suggests that
architectural practice can be liberated from its conventional arrangements. Although it is still evolving,
Gehry has achieved a holistically integrated organizational system where the architect has far more direct
interaction with all aspects of design and fabrication.
Introduction
Frank O. Gehry, one of the most inventive and
pioneering architects working today, has displayed formal freedoms enabled by the use of digital technology.
His exploration of technology-mediated design and
fabrication possibilities was pushed into new territory
with the MIT Stata Center. Prefabricated elements,
both physical and electronic, were more extensively
used here than in his previous projects. Unlike the
automotive industry or product manufacturing, architectural fabricated elements have to be assembled
and installed on-site, and a disconnection between
fabrication and installation may inhibit accurate translation of the design into building systems. GP devised a
seamless design/fabrication/assembly process deploying digitally mediated systems and implementing new
models of collaboration.
Figure 1. Stata Center: view from north
1. Project outline
Pritzker Prize laureate architect Frank Gehry and
Boston-based associate architect Cannon Design devised a 430,000-square-foot (above grade) academic
complex in the northeast quadrant of the MIT campus. This complex features flexible research facilities
and offices, an interior ‘student street,” an auditorium,
state-of-the-art classrooms, fitness facilities adjoining the existing Alumni Pool, a childcare center, and
underground parking. Inaugurated in spring 2004, the
Ray and Maria Stata Center encompasses the William
H. Gates Building, housing the Laboratory for Computer Science (LCS), and the Alexander Dreyfoos Building, housing the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, the
Laboratory for Information Decision System (LIDS),
and the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.The
2.8-acre complex was made possible in part by gifts
from Ray Stata and Maria Stata, William H. Gates, and
Alexander W. Dreyfoos, Jr. (Figure 1).
Figure 2. Project delivery system
203
On January 28, 1998, MIT selected Frank O. Gehry
and Associates (currently named Gehry Partners, LLP)
through the qualification process. The temporary status
and warehouse-like spaces of the existing building on the
site—the historic Building 20, where radar was developed
during World War II—had permitted its occupants free
reign in adapting the spaces to their needs, and in designing
the new complex, Gehry sought to recapture this spirit
of flexibility and accommodation. This is his first new
structure in the Boston area; his lone Boston landmark
had been a redesign project in which he collaborated
with a local firm, Schwartz/Silver, on what is now the
Virgin Megastore Building (360 Newbury Street) at the
corner of Newbury Street and Massachusetts Avenue
in Boston.
For this project MIT felt a responsibility to conceive of a more ambitious construction project – not
just as the rational allocation of resources to achieve
quantifiable management goals, but also as an inventive,
critical contribution to our evolving culture (Mitchell
2004). “The building itself is an experiment. The people
brought together to build and design it are all pioneers”
Glymph 2004).
Figure 3. Bilbao’s project delivery system
and information technology flow
Figure 4. Design process overview
204
2. Project team organization—associate architect model
In previous projects, GP had been accustomed
to associating with a local architect who would do
the construction documents for them. However, for
this project they decided to produce essentially all the
construction documents by themselves. A milestone
in this process change was the Guggenheim Museum
Bilbao, where they produced 80% of the construction
documents. Because the design process and the
documentation had come to rely so much on the
computer using CATIA 3-dimensional (3D) models,
they realized that the only way they could deliver
the project at the level of quality they wanted was
to develop the construction documents themselves.
This shift coincided with a gradual change in which the
Gehry office was starting to be involved in the technical
aspects of their projects much earlier. Therefore, they
were blurring the conventional boundaries between
the design phases. So the conventional associate
architect model, where someone else would take over
the preparing of construction documents, no longer
made sense for them.
Shiro Matsushima
In addition, since Gehry’s design was coming to
rely heavily on computers, they were afraid of something being lost in translation when they handed
over the design information to somebody else. The
more complex the project and the more heavily it
would be documented in three dimensions, the more
information might be lost in the process of translation.Therefore, while they needed a local partner who
would provide local knowledge and work as on-site
representative, they had to invest in a new working
relationship with the associate architect. In this case
Cannon Design worked as part of Gehry’s design
team.This change also affected the whole organization
of the construction team, including fabricator, manufacturer, and contractors (Figure 2 for project delivery
system).
In Bilbao, even though the project employed
the design architect/local architect-of-record project
delivery system that is typical of important international projects, the relationship was not a conventional
one. Designing in a 3D computer model and producing construction documents had an impact on the entire process of the project. Comprehensive services
provided by the executive architect IDOM, which also
served as project manager and construction manager,
ensured this idiosyncratic approach. CATIA data were
seamlessly used by the structural engineer SOM for
analysis and by the fabricators for CAM (Fig. 3).
Gehry moved his process further in the MIT
project, holding the role of architect-of-record whereas the local associate architect played a supplemental role that included inputting local knowledge and
assessing the project as an on-site representative. To
help the associate architect learn about what they call
their ‘idiosyncratic’ design process, two people from the
associate architect’s office, Edward Duffy and Christine
Clements, worked at Gehry’s office in Santa Monica
for one-and-a-half years, from design development to
the end of construction documents.
3. Builder—CM-at-risk
Once GP was selected as architect for the Stata
Center, MIT assembled a team to support the design
of this facility. Gehry’s nontraditional approach to design and construction and the location of his firm’s
headquarters in Los Angeles led MIT to bring in a
Figure 5. Program study models
left, lab layout, right, solids and voids
Figure 6. Urban study models. Left: campus master planning by
the separate team; right: building program block model
construction company early in the process. MIT wanted a construction company proficient in technology
usage, able to support experimental design proposals,
and possessing the intellectual depth to actively participate in potentially esoteric discussions early in the
design process. All of these criteria, it turned out, were
met by Beacon Skanska (currently named Skanska
USA Building, Inc.) (Joyce, 2004). Beacon Skanska was
engaged in the project through a CM-at-risk contract.
Design process
While advanced design technology is highly integrated into GP’s design process, Gehry’s own work
consists of iterating tactile processes. The Gehry team
works under his guidance to create the nuts-and-bolts
block models that account for the functional relationship between pieces. “Once I understand scale, context,
and everything else visually,” he says, “I just absorb that
stuff into new sketches.” It is in this phase that the architect and his team can make the leap from block model
to skin models, which account for a building’s interior
205
and exterior look and feel (Guzmán 2001). Then the
model is transferred into a 3D digital model (Fig. 4).
GP works on its designs in two directions at once:
from inside out and from outside in. On the Stata Center project, their design started with programming the
building (Fig. 5). They also carried out an urban-scale
study on how the building would sit in the context of
the campus (Fig. 6). “The design process they go through
is very long. I mean, the schematic design lasted for more
than a year, which is unheard of on a conventional project.
And they spent a lot of time with these little boxes. And
also they make many, many, many models. And whenever
they have an idea, they make a model of it. And they do
many iterations of it,” Edward Duffy of Cannon Design
recalled. In Gehry’s process, functional models come
first, before his sketches. They spent a lot of time trying to understand the program: how much there was
and how the parts needed to relate to each other.
Therefore, they spent a lot of time designing from the
inside out. At the same time, they were thinking about
the site and the sculptural possibilities. But they were
not yet designing them. “They were sort of arranging a
building that they can then sculpt. So once they’ve got
more or less the massing that they want and the program
makes sense, the client has bought into it,” said Duffy.
When they first looked at the model, the clients were
somewhat embarrassed. Gehry always said that the
model was only a programmatic diagram to determine what masses would be needed for the program,
not an architectural model. “Frank kept saying, ‘no, no,
no, this is just a diagram and it’ll get better.’ Then at a
certain point, usually fairly late in the process, they started
shaping it.’ ”
The following process was more complicated,
as they spent a lot of time shaping the building using physical models. Once that had settled down, they
brought in a structural engineer. They had a preconception about how they would hold up the building. However, for the first year there were essentially
never any columns in the plans, while they had done
a preliminary study of structural feasibility placing columns early in the process.
Figure 7. Exterior design evolution
206
Because GP did not have an in-house structural
engineer, they worked with Ron Lee of John Martin
Associates. Early in the design process the engineers
Shiro Matsushima
talked about conceptual structure with GP, and the
decision was made that the structure of the building
would be concrete. Beacon Skanska also participated
in this decision-making process from the point of view
of constructability. At some point they decided that
certain particular shapes would become steel. They
had these basic ideas in mind and then they shaped
the geometry of the building.
1. Shaping and digitizing
The shaping process was still one of tactile manipulation of physical objects. The process went back
and forth between the models and Gehry’s sketches
(Fig. 7).
Once they had sculpted shapes, scale models
were produced by Gehry’s assistants, based on the
sculpted shapes, and were scanned into 3D computer
models using a digitizer (a medical plotter originally
designed to record the shape of the human head
for brain surgery). The digitized forms were then
manipulated using CATIA, providing the ability to
model and engineer every spline and node point
accurately (Gann 2000; Fig. 8). In addition, more physical models were then created for design verification,
sometimes using rapid prototyping machines. Once
the final design had been agreed upon, electronic
design data could be transferred digitally to various
specialists.
Figure 8. Digitizing the model and structural study
2. Structure and service systems
They went back to the structural engineer to
start developing the structure after the shapes were
already set. It was developed mostly in CATIA, especially the steel shapes. Concrete was also an important element for this building. They set up a rule for
how far the column was to be from the wall; it had
to follow the geometry of the wall (Fig. 8). Besides
the structural system, the other significant difference
from Bilbao was programmatic. “Bilbao is a big building,
but museums are fairly simple in terms of program: big
rooms that display things and they have to have good
light and all other things. But this has a huge program,
pretty complicated,” said Duffy.The study of service and
mechanical systems followed this process.
Figure 9. Interior models
207
3. Interior space
The interior design was also studied using physical models, again starting from the blocks, and then
scale models were produced for the clients to confirm the design (Fig. 9).
4. Constructability—associate architect and
construction manager
Cannon Design, Edward Duffy and Christine Clements in particular, provided local knowledge while
working at Gehry’s office. In addition, since many of
Gehry’s staff were very young (about 80% of them
were in their 20s) and Duffy and Clements turned out
to be among the most experienced members of the
team, they supported the younger ones by supplying
professional knowledge.
Figure 10. Metal cladding solution
Figure 11. Construction documents: some documents are in
3 dimensions
208
Beacon Skanska’s commitment to the design
process facilitated the project. The owner and the architects needed a ‘builder’ up front. Dr. James Becker,
president and CEO of Beacon Skanska, commented
on the difference between builder and construction
manager (CM): “[a] CM has a sense of passivity in this
country, which means that I’m very professional, I sit back
and bring all these different people in to collaborate. The
word builder means [something] much more proactive,
like people who know how to build out there directing
people more proactively.” Beacon Skanska came to a
lot of the design meetings. Part of what they did was
the cost estimation from the beginning, as the designers also wanted to understand the market in Boston
in terms of issues such as how the unions work. Also,
the architects asked them for some advice about the
most cost-effective way to build things. Although GP
took the lead, Beacon Skanska provided practical
information.Their collective effort led to the choice of
a concrete structure. Because they were interested in
maximizing available space and they had to link into the
existing Building 36, which is a concrete building and
which already determined the floor heights, concrete
was the obvious choice on that score. In addition, it
would be much easier to build with the usual concrete
formwork than using steel. Dimensional control issues
in steel were assumed to be difficult, and also they
found that how to determine the edges of each floor
would really matter for the building of these complex
shapes. The most difficult problem was building the
sloped masonry wall. “It’s a difficult one because that
Shiro Matsushima
means you put in different loads on the backup system
as opposed to the backup just stabilizing the brick. Now
it carries the brick,” said Becker. “Normally in this country
you would use either steel stud backup or masonry block,
but you can’t use masonry block backup because you
can’t set the block on the slope without something behind
it. Then you come to either a backup that has to be castin-place concrete or … precast.” The choice fell on the
cast-in-place concrete.
5. Constructability—request for proposals to
fabricators
To ensure the quality of a design and its constructability, GP needs to work with companies that are able
to use the 3-dimensional methodology.They also have
to develop a protocol from project to project, negotiating the contract with the company. A. Zahner, the
metal cladding subcontractor that had collaborated
with Gehry’s office for the Experience Music Project,
is a good example. The ultimate output GP wanted
to provide them for the Stata Center was the exterior geometry with its pattern, and then the interior
geometry, and then they would be filling in between
the two. However, it was not as simple as that, because
in the process of hiring, and getting the offers and cost
estimates, and so on, and of developing the architect’s
own dimensional control, GP had to work out the
design at a certain level of detail. GP prepared a fairly
extensive request-for-proposal (RFP) package during
the first part of the construction documents phase.
Because they had already developed the concepts at
the schematic design level or the design development
level, the package contained a complete description of
the exterior metal and glass geometry and pattern, if
not all the way down to details such as bolts, as well
as full performance specifications. It also contained
the details of a very specific wall system, developed
on certain building elements, to show the bidders at
least one way of meeting the performance and visual
requirements. The bidders were asked to make a proposal based on these requirements for either the system described by GP or some other, or both.The two
candidate bidders each chose to propose a prefabricated system instead of a ‘stick-built’ system as developed by GP. This ‘stick-built’ method, which consists of
the metal studs and layers of metal, waterproofing, and
thermal insulation, was similar to the cladding system
applied to the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. Zahner
Figure 12. Information technology flow
Figure 13. Metal skin modeling: all the panels were modeled.
Left: framing; middle: skin pattern; right: endpoints (small dots)
connected with coordinate system that also interfaced with
slab for placing clips for the metal panels. All shop drawings
were in 3 dimensions. Dennis Shelden, chief technology officer
of Gehry Technologies, LLC, and a Ph.D. from MIT, made a program to rationalize the curvature of the panels. Source: Beacon
Skanska and Cannon Design
209
instead proposed a prefabricated hybrid metal panel
system that would assemble all the necessary components in their factory. This system eliminated the secondary structure and thus reduced the site work. All
they needed were the clips to anchor the panels to
the concrete slabs. Zahner’s proposal streamlined the
exterior metal skin construction.
Figure 14. A. Zahner factory. Left: workstation; right: metal pieces were cut directly from CATIA data and welded manually.
were modeled. Left: framing; middle: skin pattern; right: endpoints (small dots) connected with coordinate system that
also interfaced with slab for placing clips for the metal panels. All shop drawings were in 3 dimensions. Dennis Shelden,
chief technology officer of Gehry Technologies, LLC, and a Ph.D.
from MIT, made a program to rationalize the curvature of the
panels.
Figure 15. Metal sheet with preapplied insulation and waterproofing. Skin to be covered by various materials: stainless steel,
titanium, and painted aluminum. Each piece came with waterproofing on surface and thermal insulation on back. right: metal
pieces were cut directly from CATIA data and welded manually.
were modeled. Left: framing; middle: skin pattern; right: endpoints
(small dots) connected with coordinate system that also interfaced with slab for placing clips for the metal panels. All shop
drawings were in 3 dimensions. Dennis Shelden, chief technology
officer of Gehry Technologies, LLC, and a Ph.D. from MIT, made a
program to rationalize the curvature of the panels.
210
Although GP’s specifications were not adopted,
the fabricator was able to propose their scheme
because they could see something at the start, and the
original idea was able to give them a sense of the elements they would be building. It was a very collaborative process, and it devised a way of interfacing with
trade specialists before the construction documents
were completed.
6. Construction documents
At a certain point, some of this information was
then pulled out into 2D drawings in AutoCAD. However, that was not an automatic process, because it
was cumbersome to move things back and forth. It
was impossible to draw only a plan of this building.
Once it was developed three dimensionally, they had
to do precise cuts or slice the building at a given elevation, and that became the basis of the plan. Then they
had a 2D map and that was imported into AutoCAD,
which traced it to produce an orthographic representation (Fig. 11).
Interfacing with construction people:
fabrication and on-site assembly
In handing the information of the building to the
construction side, the questions asked included how
to describe the complex object, and what information
needed to be provided to convey design intent so that the
construction people could develop it into construction
information such as shop drawings. The most difficult
obstacle in this process was the norms of the industry,
which were essentially two dimensional and paper-based.
While some of the construction people were familiar
with digital imagery, others were not and initially resisted.
Beacon Skanska had two CATIA machines and they had
spent much of time becoming comfortable with looking
at the CATIA model.They were looking at it all the time
just to visualize what they were trying to accomplish.
Moreover, they went further and took a lot of coordinates
directly from the model. For some aspects, digital data
Shiro Matsushima
created by GP and interfaced by Beacon Skanska were
effectively used for fabrication in a somewhat seamless
manner (Fig. 12).
1. Skin metal and glass
A couple of the subcontractors such as A. Zahner
and Karas & Karas JV, the skin metal and glass fabricators respectively, used the digital model extensively (Fig. 13). Because Zahner had had a long history
with GP, the firm was accustomed to the issues. All
the metal pieces were cut directly from CATIA data
using a computer numeric control (CNC) machine,
assembled by hand in Zahner’s factory in Kansas, and
transported to the site (Fig. 14). As opposed to the
metal sheets of Bilbao, onto which multiple layers including insulation and waterproofing were constructed on site, at the Stata Center, each zinc steel panel
had thermal insulation and waterproofing applied at
the factory. After being touched up on site if necessary, each panel was fixed to the clips anchored to
the concrete structure.This also eliminated secondary
frames for most of the areas (Fig. 15).
Zahner and Karas & Karas JV also developed
all the framing dimensions using CATIA data. All the
skin areas were modeled in three dimensions; material information and coordinates appeared when one
clicked on any part of the skin (Fig. 16).
2. Steel frame
For the steel work, another key element, Capco
Steel of Providence, Rhode Island, was able to handle
digital data. They could work with Gehry’s office early
on because they were one of the top three users
of 3-dimensional models in the country. They use an
SDS/2 platform, industry-standard fabrication software (Fig. 17). Dennis Shelden wrote the program for
translation from CATIA to SDS/2. However, it did not
work in the other direction. From SDS/2, data have to
be exported in DXF format, then translated into Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) format in
AutoCAD, and then read by CATIA (Fig. 18).
Because of the tradition of having the steel fabricator define the detailed connections, the architect
did not draw them at a very detailed level. It was
always understood that the fabricator would draw all
the connections. In producing the shop drawings, the
Figure 16. Skin design and coordination
Figure 17. Steel framing done in 3 dimensions. Bottom left: all
the connections are defined by fabricator
211
data went back and forth between GP and the fabricator, so the shop drawing of the framing was essentially a 3D and paperless process. Even a review was
done in digital form (Fig. 19).
Figure 18. Steel fabrication data flow.
Bottom left: all the connections are defined by fabricator
3. Concrete
Conversely, the concrete work was completely
documented using 2D drawings because the subcontractor, S&F, was not capable of using 3D data. As part
of Gehry’s team, Christine Clements developed a 3D
CATIA model and then interfaced with the concrete
subcontractor (Fig. 20). However, 3D information was
used to calculate concrete volume quantities and to
define coordinates for carpenters’ formwork (Fig. 21,
22). Each concrete structural drawing showed coordinate points plotted every foot to couple of feet, which
were predefined by Gehry’s office or figured out by
Beacon Skanska. Every point was plotted on site using
Tripod Data Systems (TDS—see construction management discussion for detail).
4. Interior
Interior work was carried out in a more conventional manner, except for special elements (Figure 23).
Figure 19. Each steel member came with attributes transferred to
SDS/2. Bottom left: all the connections are defined by fabricator
Figure 20. CATIA concrete model
212
Construction management: plotting digital data
On-site assembly of complex, digitally fabricated
parts can be a greater challenge than placement of
standardized elements. Because Beacon Skanska was
willing to be exposed to new technology and assigned
people to the project who would be amenable to
innovation, construction management actively involved new technologies for aspects including
scheduling, material takeoff, and coordination between
various elements.
1. Digitally controlled on-site assembly
Fieldwork for Beacon Skanska also involved
advanced information technology. For surveying, in
particular, CATIA data were transferred to AutoCAD
and then imported to a field CAD system, Eagle Point.
Then the data were interfaced by Survey Link software
with Total Station’s robotics laser survey system and
Tripod Data System’s (TDS’s) handheld computer
that was used for data collection (Fig. 24). This system
involved a local positioning system that used coordinate
points defined by surveys using several benchmarks,
and later by using a radio station placed on the parking
garage in the below-grade after it was built.
Shiro Matsushima
In addition, coordinate points were extracted
from CATIA data, sorted by MS-Excel, and then
put on the website using MS Active Sink. In the field,
people interactively referred collected surveyed data
to the data put on the website, which was a powerful
method for this complex project, providing accurate
measurement and achieving a range of accurate leveling, grading, alignment, and positioning (Fig. 25).
This system was also used for various aspects of
the construction, such as giving coordinate points to
carpenters for the formwork. Gehry’s office essentially defined the coordinate points of all the elements.
However, in case some of them were missing or construction people needed them, field people could
extract the points from the CATIA model and reflect
to the construction information.
Figure 21. Concrete volume quantities: sheer walls are
made of concrete
2. Schedule—4D CAD
For scheduling GP employed 4D CAD, developed by the Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) of Stanford University. Gehry’s office had
integrated CATIA into the system working with Walt
Disney Imagineering for the Disney Concert Hall in
Los Angeles. This software enables the construction
management to schedule construction sequentially:
how things would go up, what the relations would be
between the tasks, and what temporary work would
be happening (Fig. 26). Another advantage is material takeoff. Each element comes with attributes and is
used for various tasks, including cost modeling and skin
pattern arrangement (Fig. 27, 28).
Figure 22. Concrete work (April 25, 2002)
Information management protocol
In order to make the most of a digitally-mediated
process, coordination of the project was also mediated by information technology, though they did not use
a single tool (Fig. 29). The design website was basically
the Frank Gehry website, and there was a file transfer
protocol (FTP) site that was separate from the design
website. In this design website they posted information ess for the client. However, the other members
of the design team, including Cannon and Vanderweil,
also looked at it. On the design website there were
program documents, and every month they updated
the plans and photographs of the models. Most of the
heavy transfer of data, including drawings between
offices and so forth, used the FTP site. For example,
Figure 23. Stata Board Room on sixth floor: the sculpted shell was
modeled in 3D, interior shapes were done in both 3D and 2D
213
Cannon was in Boston developing all the drawings for
the underground work; when GP needed to get this
printed, it got posted on the FTP site and then GP
had a complete set of documents. MIT had its own
website mainly for public relations purposes. Beacon
Skanska had its own Stata Center FTP site to communicate with its subcontractors.
1. Citadon
In the construction administration phase (Fig. 30),
the commercial extranet software Citadon replaced
the design website. MIT hosted Citadon, whose server
was in San Francisco. During construction this became a
central clearinghouse for questions, memos, and issuing
of new documents. It gained a fairly good reputation
among users, including architects. “Tremendously useful.
People like to complain about it, … but we couldn’t live
without it because everybody can instantly see everything
and everything you can get to easily,” said Duffy.While the
extranet won a good reputation during construction,
it did not during the design mode. Becker comments,
“I think the whole area of a collaboration website turned
out to be somewhat of a disappointment. We tended to
drift to more administratively rich websites like ‘ProjectTalk’
(www.projecttalk.com/) that have stronger administrative
packages. ... But the problem with all these things is they
require a real commitment to use them. And if the team
doesn’t have the commitment (and often the worst people
are architects), these things fit better into construction
administration mode.”
Figure 24. CATIA to Total Station.
Figure 25. Total Station and TDS: a worker (top and bottom right)
surveys with several benchmarks, and his colleague (top in the
small ellipse and bottom left) finds points with handheld data
collector referring to the data on the website. A radio station on
the underground parking garage later replaced benchmarks.
214
Merging design and fabrication
1. Design, representation, and fabrication
Frank Gehry not only changed the design of
architectural objects but also changed the way things
are designed and built, which is process. Figure 31
shows a comprehensive diagram of the translation
among representations in the sixth decade, originally
proposed by William Mitchell (the 2000s is the sixth
decade since Dr. Ivan Sutherland invented Sketchpad
at MIT). In Gehry’s case, all three ellipses in the diagram
are important. While conventional design evolves
mostly in the domains of ellipses 1 and 2, his design
also involves the third ellipse domain. In particular, his
design goes back and forth constantly between the
physical model and the digital model. In many respects,
his design starts with physical models, then is brought
into CATIA and refined, then brought back to physical
Shiro Matsushima
models.The designers then play with the model some
more and go back and forth. Finally, the information
is developed into construction documents in both 2
and 3 dimensions.
2. Limitations
In actual practice, however, the process was really
challenging because the architect has to have three
databases (physical model, digital model, and drawings) that are completely disconnected. The problem
is that the moment the digital model is sliced and sent
to the 2D world, they are in two different worlds, says
Marc Salette, GP’s project architect. “The difference is
not so much the format as the method. So ideally you
would have one database and you can spread it out in
3D, in 4D, in 2D, and it doesn’t matter. You just do it for
what you need it for. If it’s simpler to convey the information for somebody’s building in 2 dimensions, you would
do it in 2 dimensions even in our process.” Working on
the organization of the plan to meet the code requirements for handicapped access, for instance, need not
be done in 3 dimensions. As long as the various layers
are kept, working in 2 dimensions is better in certain
situations. “The problem that we are trying to resolve is
that we still have two different databases, not because
we need these two different types of outputs but because in our office we still don’t have the resources or
the knowledge globally to conduct all of our work in 3D,”
says Salette.
“You can only create the bridges between the two
universes so often. You could do it on a daily basis, but
that would be completely impractical because that
means that you will have one person who is working in
3D spending all his time doing 2D cuts, and that would
mean the person working on 2D would be on very shifty
ground because they would be developing something and
[then] I will send them a new version,’ Salette continues.
It is particularly impractical during the phases of the project when the geometry changes a lot. Therefore, they are
aiming to have a single database, ‘working in a way that
would allow the architects in our office to concentrate
on solving problems and spend as little time as possible
organizing documentation.’There is also a higher potential
for errors resulting from lack of synchronization between
the two databases. However, Salette points out that even
in the traditional 2D world, a lot of time is spent just managing information: ‘discrepancies between two drawings
Figure 26. 4D modeling.
Figure 27. Material takeoff.
Figure 28. Coordination: Beacon Skanska interfaced among
several systems. Because architects do not put in all the detail,
the fabricators’ literacy became critical.
215
and between the door schedule and the drawing. ... So I
think probably most large firms in the world are trying to
tackle these issues.”
Figure 29. Information management protocol in the design mode.
The way GP sees it in their process, it would be
the single database in 3 dimensions that could contain
all the information. “For example, as you work on this
room you can assign this door a number. And then all the
information is there, which is used in different ways of outputting. But it’s all linked.You don’t have to verify between
one platform and the other,” says Salette. Currently they
are working with the V5 version of CATIA, which has
an enhanced function to produce 2D information, led
by Dennis Shelden. It is one step in the right direction
because it can create 2D slices much more easily than
the previous version, which means that the objects
can be better linked. However, they are still importing
the slices into AutoCAD drawings, which means that
the objects are on different platforms and no longer
linked. “I just hope the day comes when we just have
one platform and it’s CATIA or something else, something
better that will allow you as an architect to work at 3
dimensions most of the time, because that’s how we can
better solve the problems,” he says.
Conclusion
A design and fabrication method that heavily
involves computer technology changes the way not
only the design team, but also the construction sectors,
work. People involved in the process are required to
have literacy in, and willingness to adapt themselves to,
the new system. The organization of the project has to
be structured by reimagining the relation of design and
construction in a way that blurs their traditional divisions,
which means not only process integration, such as vertical integration, but also the integration of expertises.
Figure 30. Information management protocol in the construction administration mode. the design mode.
216
Such integration, however, sometimes creates
siloed situations where vertically integrated processes
are less well connected horizontally. This situation may
be exacerbated when parts of the project are competitively bid in conventional manner or when someone takes over a task at a certain point. GP’s approach
displays particular aspects of a holistic design process
for which the office has been shaping its organizational culture over time. One of the major forces in this
change has been the increasing dependence of their
design process on the computer. In addition, they have
Shiro Matsushima
been examining the technical issues, which used to
be studied in the later phases, early on in the process,
so the distinctions between schematic design, design
development, and construction documents have become somewhat meaningless for GP. On top of that,
as they have switched from working with an associate
architect who produced construction documents to
producing construction documents themselves, they
have been required to take on all the risks and liabilities that other participants in the project, such as local
architect of record, construction manager, and fabricators, used to be responsible for. GP has developed
a method to hedge these risks by involving industry
up front, devising a project delivery system in which
the construction manager ensures overall constructability and fabricators develop design detail for some
elements, while GP maintains its own design management tasks (Fig. 32).
In the context of a digitally mediated building process, the critical issue for GP is to collaborate with
construction sectors that have the skills and fabrication facilities needed to develop and implement their
ideas. Unlike mass-market production, buildings are
mostly done one at a time, and construction calls for
very few off-the-shelf parts (Joyce 2004). Devising a
way to involve the industry in the design process in
order to translate their design ideas accurately into
building systems is crucial for GP in order to deliver
buildings at the level of quality they want.
Figure 31. Translation among representations in the sixth decade. the construction administration mode. the design mode.
Figure 32. Innovation in project delivery.
217
References
Interviews
Becker, James: CEO and President, Beacon Skanska,
Boston, MA. September 9, 2002, at Beacon Skanska, Boston, MA.
Bonet, Frances: Project Engineer, Beacon Skanska, Boston, MA. January 17, 2003, at MIT Stata Center
field office.
Duffy, Edward: Senior Associate, Cannon Design. August 23, 2002, at MIT Stata Center field office and
February 18, 2003, via email.
Joyce, Nancy E.: Senior Project Manager, MIT Department of Facilities. May 1, 2001, May 15, 2002, and
April 3, 2003 at MIT Stata Center field office.
March 28, 2003, via email.
Mitchell, William J.: Dean of Architecture and Planning
of MIT. March 14, 2002, at MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Salette, Marc: Project Architect, Gehry Partners, LLP.
October 1, 2002, at MIT Stata Center field office.
January 20 and 21, March 31, and April 1, 2003,
via email.
Shelden, Dennis: Chief Technology Officer, Gehry
Technologies, LLC. April 17, 2003, via phone, followed up via email on April 21, 2003.
Lectures/conference
The Stata Center at MIT. Becker, James: CEO and
President, Beacon Skanska, moderator. Speakers:
Bonet, Francis: Project Engineer, Beacon Skanska;
Tucker, Ben: Assistant Project Manager, Beacon
Skanska; and McKenzie, Scott: Assistant Superintendent, Beacon Skanska. Harvard Design School/
Center for Design Informatics, Real Estate, Construction, and the Internet Conference 2001, November 16, 2001.
Geometry and Constructability. Shelden, Dennis: Senior Associate, Gehry Partners, LLP. Lecture at
MIT, April 24, 2002.
The Evolving MIT Campus. Sirianni, Victoria: Director,
MIT Department of Facilities. Career Services
Activity lecture series by MIT Center For Real
Estate, November 20, 2002.
The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao, Topics in Project
Management (GSD7222-s03). Joyce, Nancy E.:
Senior Project Manager, MIT Department of Facilities. Guest speaker for the seminar at Harvard
Design School on April 10, 2003.
Terman, Chris: Users’ Representative, Lecturer in Electrical Engineering & Computer Science at MIT.
July 30, 2002, at MIT Tech Square.
218
Shiro Matsushima
Literature
Barrow, Larry R. (2000). Case Study 2: Frank O. Gehry
and Associates. Doctor of Design dissertation,
Harvard Design School.
van Bruggen, Coosje (1997). Frank O. Gehry: Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications.
Gann, David M. (2000). Building Innovation, London, UK:
Thomas Telford Ltd.177-179.
Glymph, Jim (2004). Personal comment in “MIT Celebrates Stata Center.” In Tech Talk, MIT, May 12, 2004.
Guzmán, Pilar (2001).The Hand of Frank Gehry. In one
premier issue, December/January 2001.
Joyce, Nancy E. (2004). Building Stata. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
MIT (2000). Stata Stories. Tech Talk, September 25,
2000.
MIT Department of Facilities. (2001). The Evolving
MIT Campus. Newsletter.
Mitchell, William J. (2001). Roll Over Euclid: How Frank
Gehry Designs and Builds. In Frank Gehry, Architect, ed. Ragheb, J. Fiona, 353-363. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications.
Mitchell, William J. (2004). Afterword. In Building Stata,
132-135. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT
Press.
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. (2001). Frank Gehry Architect. In @Guggenheim, the Guide to the
Guggenheim Museums, Summer 2001. New York:
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum.
Wright, Sarah H. (2001). Architect Mitchell Offers
Closer Look at Campus Projects. In Tech Talk, MIT,
November 7, 2001.
Notes
This research paper is based on and developed
from the case study on the Stata Center conducted for
the author’s doctoral dissertation entitled “Collaboration in Architectural Design: an IT Perspective,” submitted
in June 2003 to Harvard Design School, Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Thanks are due to thesis committee
members Professor Spiro Pollalis and Professor Jeffrey
Huang of Harvard Design School and Professor William Mitchell of Massachusetts Institute of Technology
for their guidance of the dissertation.Thanks especially
to Professor Mitchell, architectural advisor to the president of MIT, who helped the author gain access to
the project team of this building and enabled intensive
interviews with the team members. Interviews were
carried out at mid- to end-construction period, so
the people interviewed had diverse knowledge and
reflections about this innovative project, which provided concrete information on which this paper has
relied. I thank all the interviewees for their kind cooperation. I also thank Matthew Abbate of MIT Press
for his editing my English and input about structuring
this paper.
Shiro Matsushima is appointed Associate Professor at the Department of Architecture and Civil
Engineering, Toyohashi University of Technology in Japan. Proir experiences include a research fellow at the
Center for Design Informatics of Harvard University.
He has diverse experience in architectural design and
construction as a senior architect of Kajima Corporation, one of Japan’s largest contractors. His research
focuses on collaboration in architectural design and
use of information technology. Other case studies he
has conducted include the Museum of Modern Art,
New York, the bcsp (brain and cognitive sciences project) at MIT, and the Media Lab expansion at MIT. He
received his Bachelor and Master of Engineering from
Kyoto University, Japan, and his Master in Architecture
and Doctor of Design from Harvard Design School.
219

Technology-Mediated Process: MIT Stata Center case

Transcription

Similar documents

with GM and Frank O. Gehry

Award-winning Moth is dedicated to the art and craft

Presentation

PDF - Rachlin Partners

The auditorium of the Fondation Louis Vuitton complex features an

Overview of CAMIT

Specialist engineering, manufacture and servicing

Fall 2014 General Body Meeting

MASTER ARCHITECT

MIT ALPHA CHI OMEGA